Page 1 / 2   >   >>
kq4ym 7/28/2016 | 1:38:22 PM
Re: Valuation Trying to double cost saving seems to be quite a challenge for anyone. If they can handle that maybe they will make a successful play over their competition. It will bear watching carfullly over the next year for sure.
James_B_Crawshaw 7/20/2016 | 2:16:28 PM
Re: A7 Er, I understand the concept thank you very much Mr TV Monitor. You seem to be inferring that ARM is not as good as others at designing CPU cores. Surely it is just the case that its designs have to be generic so that a large number of firms can use them. If one is designing a whole SoC, including an ARM-compatible CPU core, then naturally you can eke out higher performance. And given the scale and vertically integrated nature of Apple and Samsung that might make sense. 

This article is a good explanation of the evolving ARM license model and mentions Qualcomm as the first licensee of the new "Built on ARM Cortex Technology" license. 

TV Monitor 7/20/2016 | 1:34:09 PM
Re: A7 James_B_Crawshaw

"An architectural license does enable a chip designer to optimise power consumption / performance more than the plain vanilla core but requires more in house design work naturally."

Cyclops and Exynos 8890 are ARM compatible, not ARM designed, cores. Cyclops was designed by a former PowerPC team and features an architecture more comparable to a desktop/laptop PC than a handheld device. Likewise the Exynos 8890 core was derived from an ARM server CPU core that Samsung was building for data warehouses. This is why Cyclops and 8890 overpower everybody else's ARM compatible designs, even ARM's own designs.

The analogy is like AMD's X86 processors; AMD's X86 processors are compatible with Intel's X86 processors, but are not related to or are derivatives of Intel's processors. This is the concept that James_B_Crawshaw has so much trouble understanding.

Another example would be StrongARM designed and sold by Intel. It was an ARM compatible processor that featured a much stronger performance than ARM's own designs, but was designed by Intel.
James_B_Crawshaw 7/20/2016 | 12:50:55 PM
Re: A7 Ah, good point Gabriel. An architectural license does enable a chip designer to optimise power consumption / performance more than the plain vanilla core but requires more in house design work naturally. Apple and Samsung do have 64 bit architecture licenses (along with several others) while Qualcomm only has a 32 bit architecture license I believe. 
Gabriel Brown 7/20/2016 | 12:32:26 PM
Re: A7 TV Monitor may be referring to ARM Architectural Licensees (as opposed to ARM Core Licensees)
James_B_Crawshaw 7/20/2016 | 11:15:22 AM
Re: A7 Er, I don't think so. See here about A7 having a v8 core. 


I'm not sure what you mean by ARM's own cores not being able to compete against the Cyclops and Exynos 8890. Both of these chips use ARM cores. ARM does not compete with Apple and Samsung. It is an IP supplier to them. 

Qualcomm shipped 932 million mobile chips last year, up 8% YoY, all of which use ARM cores. That does not sound like an utter failure to me. 
TV Monitor 7/19/2016 | 10:20:41 PM
Re: Valuation James_B_Crawshaw,

"The iPhone 5S was the first to use the v8 core"

Apple A7 did not. Apple has its own ARM compatible core called the Cyclops that is laptop class. The only other ARM compatible core that could compete with the Cyclops is Samsung's Exynos 8890. Not even ARM's own cores could compete against the Cyclops and the Exynos 8890 in raw performance. Qualcomm's own ARM compatible cores have been utter failures.

AMD's ARM compatible core could compete, but no benchmarks yet.
James_B_Crawshaw 7/19/2016 | 4:57:11 PM
Re: Valuation Ouch! That hurts (Ericsson). I think the majority of ARM units are 32 bit. 64 bit is quite recent for ARM. The iPhone 5S was the first to use the v8 core which enables 64 bit. I think x86 still dominates 64 bit computing today.

Both ARM and Ericsson have legacy products and new products. Both businesses generate money from licensing their intellectual property. Ericsson also sells propretary products and services. 

In 2015 ARM generated $780m of royalty revenue and a further $588m from licenses. There was an additional $120m of revenue from software and services. 

In comparison Ericsson generated $1.7bn from intellectual property (royalties and licenses) plus $5.1bn from software, $12.7bn from services and $10.1bn from hardware very little of which was TDM and 2G related. 

danielcawrey 7/19/2016 | 12:23:42 PM
Re: Valuation At least they have a growth market they can focus on in SE Asia. It looks like the U.S. is not a place where Ericsson is doing well, perhaps due to the dominance of companies that are based in America such as Cisco. 
sowen557 7/19/2016 | 10:42:44 AM
Re: Valuation ARM was dominating the 32bit/64Bit markets.  Ericsson control a dying breed of TDM switches and 2G Cell sites.
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Sign In